Opinion | A Review of Ashokan Politics

Revolution is overrated. Ashokan politics needs a new way to associate itself with the voters.

Rohan Parikh, Class of 2019

The fourth year of the election cycle at Ashoka University, and already the candidates are promising a zestful return to the politics ‘of old’, where students had faith in the House of Representatives (HoR) and elections shone with the halo of honey and sunshine.

As is the case with each election cycle, this time too there was talk about a ‘stunning lack’ of representation, accountability, transparency, and efficiency. Candidates are convinced there is ‘something’ at stake; unfortunately, they seem unable to articulate it. So they resort to beating the tired old drum of revolution, of a utopian Ashoka that lives by utopian Ashokan ideals.

Inferno

The Election Commission had promised the audience a riveting first debate. And they delivered. The Candidate Debate was a mess. President of Bringing Justice to the People (BJP), Srishti Bansal, lost her composure and abused the Election Commission (EC). Members of other parties, the Independent Bloc and independent candidates took cheap shots at BJP. The EC repeatedly either forgot to acknowledge independent candidate Kanan Gupta’s presence or mistook him for independent (and absent) candidate Vihaan Singh.

Whether BJP was a joke or not was the central concern addressed in the debate. A host of other issues were brought onto the table (admittedly in a sincere spirit but received with mockery), the most memorable one being the introduction of mini-thalis, proposed by independent candidate Akash Kumar. A community solution to allowing students to consume alcohol illegally without getting into trouble was proposed by BJP. ‘Ethnic day’ was Moksh’s solution to a concern about the lack of knowledge of people’s diversity and backgrounds on campus.

There was a poignant moment when Shivam Sahu raised the question of inclusivity and pointed to the caste and economic discrimination that undergirds relations between individuals on campus. Unfortunately, but expectedly, the moment was cheered, appropriated into a few remarks, and then forgotten, for the show must go on.

Halfway through the debate, it seemed the winner of the night would not be those who attempted meaningful debate; rather those who stayed more composed than BJP. In that respect, Prakrit owned the night. It maintained a dignified silence through most of the debate, speaking sparsely and only to the point. But this negative victory only conferred to them the moral high ground, which is a far cry from displaying actual ability.

The audience too was as much part of the problem as were the candidates. Precious time was wasted in getting them to calm down. Rhetorical battles ensued and were quelled. Election Commissioner Anirudh Pisharam summarised the dominant sentiment of the night when he bid everyone a good night and promised an even more interesting event three days hence- the Presidential Debate. He may not have meant it in a disingenuous spirit, but the message that came across was painfully clear: It was the dusk of Ashokan politics.

Purgatorio

Come Monday night, Dr. Reddy’s auditorium was packed with people ready for what many feared would be a reenactment of last week. The new moderator Apuroop Sethupathy stepped up to the role with one purpose: to make this debate as informative and comprehensive, in other words, as boring, as possible.

Perhaps some people were disappointed by the lack of fervor in the speeches. Candidates actually spoke intelligibly. They raised issues of varying importance and when asked about the conduct of their parties in the previous debate, were surprisingly (and thankfully) insightful and penitent. Let’s try and forget that night, they said. The old adage- nothing ever happens on campus- is to be preferred if the alternative is the embarrassing event they orchestrated.

What followed in the Presidential Debate, however, must not be judged in comparison to the first debate. Our umeedwaars spoke of a host of administrative issues, ranging from air purifiers to sports equipment to an improved structure for sex education for students. Critical issues like mental health and sexual harassment were mentioned.

Yet, all of this was not quite adequate. Pervasive ignorance on some critical issues was brought to light. The most uncomfortable five minutes of the debate was when fourth-year undergraduate Akash Megh Sharma bluntly asked the candidates about their stance on affirmative action regarding caste-based admission at Ashoka.

The fact that Sethupathy had to repeatedly explain what exactly the question intended to do, and even what affirmative action amounted to, said a lot about the candidates’ knowledge of the problem itself. The answers/solutions proposed ranged from ignorance about the issue to a flat-out rejection to an acknowledgment of not having discussed the issue before to be able to do justice to the question.

There were other times in the debate when candidates were ignorant of the policies that were already in place. Provisions of the Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CASH) were not well known among the candidates; they had simply forgotten to do their homework.

And then there is the issue that goes well beyond manifestos and ‘party ideologies’, (whatever that means when all the parties take the same stand on issues):

Moksh suffered from the problem of inexperience and airy rhetoric that senior undergraduates saw right through as reminiscent of each freshman batches’ fantastical approach to politics at Ashoka. BJP for all its promises and hopes succeeded in marshaling a string of rhetoric that amounts to little. How the Independent Bloc is not a political party was not entirely clear- something they have been at pains to define, but somehow failing at. Prakrit stood on the safer side of revolution. It said all the right things at all the right times in all the right ways. No more, no less. But also: no farther, no deeper.

Independent candidates Sumedha Suresh and Kanan Gupta raised concerns about sexual harassment and breach of online privacy respectively. Akash Kumar proposed plantation drives and lunch carriers, among other things. When questioned how these problems required the HoR specifically to solve, only Suresh and Kumar chose to respond. They said it was simply the case that issues were ‘taken more seriously’ if the government raised them. Seriously.

Paradiso?

Ashokan politics could be at a fork in the road, and the road less traveled will make all the difference. But that would presuppose it to have left home in the first place. The path would be ill served if it is paved with rhetoric.

The question of ‘reviving’ ideals does not arise when they’ve never been implemented in the first place. Neither the zealous yet inexperienced freshmen nor the ‘wise’ but indifferent senior undergraduates can do something meaningful for themselves and the campus if they do not cooperate.

If there is one thing that each candidate mentioned in different ways, that goes to the heart of Ashokan politics, it is that for real and effective solutions, real knowledge about life on campus must be sought. The experiences of all eleven hundred undergraduates must be heard. Solutions don’t necessarily have to be revolutionary- they can simply be concise and helpful. “Uprooting the system” and being “done with this s*it” requires knowing what the aforementioned s*it is actually comprised of, how it came to be defined in such unpropitious terms and whether we’re interested in solutions; or is it merely a political platitude, to be used over and over and over?

To the voters: There are real issues and there are real solutions. There are good, hardworking people across party lines. They’re not perfect, but they can be molded. The onus is upon you to choose representatives who will run the long mile. Knowing that, the first mistake you can make is to not vote. The second mistake you can make is to vote frivolously. The third mistake you can make is to not hold accountable those who do get elected.

Better a cynic who voted than a rebel who abstained. Everyone is involved in this job — let’s do it right.

Rohan Parikh is in his second year at Ashoka University. Views are personal.